Friday, April 18, 2008

Bribes, poor roads hamper supply-chain management

0 comments
Friday, April 18, 2008 Vincent Lingga, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Commercial deliveries are unpredictable because of conflicting local regulations, illegal payments and crumbling road infrastructure, according to a recent survey of domestic trucking costs by the Asia Foundation and the University of Indonesia's Institute for Economic and Social Research (LPEM-FEUI).

The study, conducted in Sulawesi, East Java, North Sumatra and East Nusa Tenggara, found truck drivers and transportation firms made regular payments to the police, officials at weigh stations and to local thugs at checkpoints along their routes.

Adding to trucking costs are the poor road infrastructure and cumbersome route licensing procedures imposed by regional administrations.

The reasons the roads are in such bad condition include the widespread practice of overloading trucks and inadequate maintenance work. Truck drivers simply bypass weigh stations by paying a noncompliance fee to the local officials.

These problems make the overall vehicle operating costs for trucks US$0.34 per kilometer, as against $0.22 in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and China, the survey concluded.

The findings validated a complaint made earlier by the Food and Beverage Industries Association that hauling cargo from Jakarta to Surabaya required the payment of almost Rp 450,000 in illegal levies to officials at 14 scaling bridges between the two cities.
But it is like an egg and chicken game. Truck drivers claim they have to overload their trucks to be able to cover all the illegal levies they have to pay along the highway.

The findings of the survey show how seemingly hopeless the conditions of our road transportation services are and how incompetent the central government and regional administrations have been in coping with illegal levies on the highway.

Yet more damaging is how ignorant the government has been about the strategic role of efficient road transportation in logistics, as almost 70 percent of the country's cargo is hauled by trucks, and how crucial is superior logistics management to create efficient supply chains.

A 2005 study by LPEM-FEUI of 75 large export-oriented industrial companies at four of Indonesia's largest seaports in Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi concluded that logistics services accounted for an average 14 percent of total production costs, among the highest in Southeast Asia.

This finding confirmed what many businesspeople have long complained about; a high-cost economy that makes the country's exports less competitive in the international market.
The study found the high logistics costs derived mainly from poor infrastructure, illegal levies and arduous bureaucratic procedures.

International studies also have shown that logistics arrangements in Indonesia are still grossly inefficient, as evidenced by the high portion taken by distribution and logistics in the free-on-board prices of goods.

All these problems make Indonesia's logistics capability miserably low and consequently its supply chain grossly inefficient.

This is quite worrisome because efficient logistics -- low transportation costs, short transit times, reliable delivery schedules and careful handling of goods in cold storage chains -- are vital for trade and the smooth distribution of goods.

Globalization requires greatly increased coordination of transportation by road, rail, sea, air and lately also by an entirely new route to market -- the Internet. This makes logistics vastly more complex. The job of ensuring that all these things work together is known as supply chain management.

A study of 150 countries by the World Bank in 2007 concluded that facilitating the capacity to connect firms, suppliers and consumers is crucial in a world where predictability and reliability are becoming even more important than costs.

Being able to connect to global markets is fast becoming a key aspect of a country's capacity to compete, grow, attract investment, create jobs and reduce poverty, the World Bank said.
It is no coincidence that the most competitive economies also rank very high on the Logistics Performance Index drawn on the basis of the study. Most developed countries and Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China, India rank high on the index.

Many companies have reengineered their supply chains to gain a huge competitive advantage. What has made such giant retailers as Wal-Mart and Carrefour highly competitive is their superior logistics management. The market leaders all have supply chains that are more responsive to customer demand.

Things like transportation, purchasing and warehousing, once considered merely part of the cost of doing business and often managed as separate entities, are now seen by most managers as a strategic agenda.

Industrial companies cannot manufacture goods without the inputs they need and in the case of Indonesia most manufacturers still rely on imported materials and parts and components. Hence, if delivery times are expedient and reliable, manufacturers should not hold large inventories of inputs, thereby cutting their inventory costs.

Superior logistics management is the key to making Hong Kong and Singapore efficient shipping hubs for their neighboring countries. Besides their highly efficient port-handling systems, their auxiliary services like customs and freight forwarding are also smooth.

However, an efficient supply chain requires a minimum set of conditions, notably efficient transportation, expedient customs services and production standards to ensure the free flow of goods, services (including labor) and investments.

Without efficient logistics Indonesia will not be able to become part of the global supply chain.



Read full post »

Only credible contingency measures can reassure the market

0 comments
Monday, April 07, 2008 Vincent Lingga , The Jakarta Post

Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati told an emergency news conference after an unscheduled limited Cabinet session on the economy chaired by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono last Thursday that the Indonesian economy was under control and that escalating inflationary pressures were manageable despite the soaring food prices and fuel subsidies.

In a stronger bid to reassure the market, Sri Mulyani put the government's money where its mouth is, stating the government would buy back in cash its bonds maturing between 2008 and 2013.

However, the market will remain jittery, nervously waiting for concrete, credible measures to maintain fiscal sustainability and check the runaway inflation, which cumulatively reached 3.41 percent during the first quarter alone, as against the 6.5 percent inflation target for the whole year.

Year-on-year inflation in March surged to 8.2 percent, already higher than Bank Indonesia's benchmark short-term interest rate of 8 percent.

No wonder that investors, already skittish due to the global financial turmoil, became more worried over what they perceive as higher sovereign risks of the government.

This is reflected in the increase in the risk premium on Indonesia's international bonds to 300 basis points (over the U.S. Treasury bonds) last month from 130 bp last year.

The government's domestic borrowing costs also have risen, as shown by the increase in the yield on rupiah bonds to more than 12 percent from around 9 percent last year.

This is truly worrisome because the government plans to raise Rp 117.80 trillion (US$12.8 billion) from rupiah and dollar bonds this year to help plug its budget hole.

The miserable failure to get a single bid for its zero-coupon bonds auctioned late last month showed how widely different were the government and market perceptions of fiscal sustainability and economic outlook.

The government claims the economic situation is generally healthy and that the underlying assumptions in the revised budget are not much different from the reality.
However, the market sees things differently.

Market players believe the state budget will not be sustainable as long as it remains helplessly strapped to the nasty roller coaster of increasingly costly oil. How could the government still claim the budget is anchored on prudent fiscal management when fuel, power and food subsidies will take up more than 23 percent of total spending this year?

How could the budget be seen as politically viable when energy subsidies alone will exceed budgetary appropriations for capital investment and social expenditure?

The state budget is a communication system, conveying signals to the market and the people in general about behavior, prices, priorities, intentions and commitments. Budget reforms therefore should take particular account of these characteristics.

Even without so many inimical external factors, the budget system is already adversely affected by multiple, converging uncertainties, entrenched patterns of expenditure, severe inflation and structural imbalances between expectations and resources.

The budget system must be built to cope with these realities.

Unfortunately, most of the contingency measures pronounced by the government focus on austerity and high budget discipline, which sadly have so far been the main weaknesses of the government.

None of the measures is designed to reduce fuel consumption or slash fuel subsidies, thereby leaving the budget a helpless hostage to the wildly volatile international prices.

Another problem is that the fiscal stimulus -- more than US$17 billion in budgetary allocations for capital spending this year -- may again come in fits and starts, ill-timed and beyond the bureaucratic machinery's digestive powers. Last year, for example, almost 60 percent of the budget appropriations for capital expenditures was spent in the last quarter alone.

Without significant progress in budget execution, the economic growth target of 6.4 percent -- as against 6 percent forecast by the ADB and the World Bank and 6.2 percent by Bank Indonesia -- will not likely be achieved because private and government consumption remains one of the main drivers of economic expansion, besides investment and exports.

How the government maintains its prudent fiscal management and implements more concerted efforts to bolster exports and investment to offset the impact of the weakening global economy will determine the government sovereign risks and investors' risk appetite regarding its bonds, which in turn will influence the costs of its borrowing.

Read full post »
 

Copyright © Vincent Lingga - Opinion Column